Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts of the case of the petitioner can be summarized in nutshell as under:

2.1. The Nagar Panchayat, Babra was holding certain parcels of Gamtal land prior to 1955 and intended to sell some portion of such Gamtal land to the petitioner bank. The Nagar Panchayat, Babra, therefore, sought permission from District Development Officer, Amreli to sell the said Gamtal land to the petitioner. The District Development Officer, Amreli granted the permission with certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said portion of Gamtal land by executing a registered sale deed. The petitioner had paid 25% more price than the market price of such land. Thereafter, the petitioner started construction work of building including 14 shops after approval of plans by the Nagar Panchayat, Babra. Thereafter, the petitioner had given the said shops on rent. The petitioner is carrying on banking activities in the said premises since 1985. Thereafter, in the year NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19795/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined 2011, the RBI informed the petitioner Bank to dispose of non-banking assets as it is in violation of Section 9 of the Banking Regulations Act. Therefore, petitioner Bank had passed a resolution and intended to sell those 14 shops. The petitioner sought prior permission from the District Development Officer, Amreli to sell out the shops. However, during the interregnum period, since the Nagar Panchayat, Babra had turned into Nagarpalika, the DDO forwarded the said proposal to the District Collector, Amreli along with his remarks. The District Development Officer concerned informed the Collector that there is breach of condition of original permission and therefore appropriate action is required to be initiated by the District Collector. Thereafter, the District Collector had initiated the proceedings for breach of condition and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and filed written submissions. After considering the materials available on record, the Collector passed the impugned order under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, vesting the entire property of the petitioner bank in the Government.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the facts of the present case and submitted that Nagar Panchayat, Babra acquired some parcels of Gamtal land before 10.10.1955 and intended to sell some portion of said Gamtal land to the petitioner - Bank. Thereafter, the Nagar Panchayat, Babra sought permission from the District Development Officer, Amreli under Section 98(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act to sell the said Gamtal land to the petitioner, which was granted by the District Development Officer, Amreli vide order dated 21.10.1985 by imposing certain conditions. He submits that those conditions would be applicable to Nagar Panchayat, Babra and not to the present petitioner as those conditions were not imposed at the time of execution of sale deed by the Nagar Panchayat, Babra. He further submits that the petitioner purchased the said land from Nagar Panchayat, Babra by executing a registered sale deed and paying 25% more price than the market price of the said property. Thereafter, the petitioner Bank had carried out construction work of building after approval of plans by the concerned Nagar Panchayat. He submits that along with the building of bank, petitioner had also constructed shops, which were NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19795/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined given on rent. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that the said shops were constructed after approval of plans by the concerned Nagar Panchayat and Nagar Panchayat was well aware about the fact of renting out the said shops, despite that, they have not raised any objections at that relevant point of time. He further submits that the petitioner Bank had purchased the subject land by executing a registered sale deed and they are the absolute owner and occupier of the subject property and therefore imposition of conditions by the District Development Officer, Amreli is not legal and proper.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that it is well settled that Gamtal land would not fall under restricted 'New Tenure' and it shall be free from the restrictions under Sections 73A and 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, despite that, the District Development Officer, Amreli has, at the time of granting permission, imposed condition No.3, whereby, the subject land is considered to be of 'New and Impartible Tenure'. He submits that new and impartible tenure is applied to the agricultural lands only and not to the Gamtal land and once the property is permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose, the said property would automatically fall under the category of old tenure land and therefore question of breach of condition would not come into play. He further submits that petitioner had NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19795/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined purchased the said property by executing a registered sale deed by paying 25% more price than the market price and petitioner is the absolute owner of the said property. Thus, condition No.3 imposed by the District Development Officer, Amreli is nullity since inception and not in consonance with the provisions of the revenue laws and therefore the said condition is required to be set aside.

14. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered the materials placed on record, it is found out that Nagar Panchayat, Babra had acquired certain parcels of Gamtal land prior to NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19795/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined 1955 and intended to sell some portion of such Gamtal land to the petitioner for banking activities. The Nagar Panchayat, Babra, therefore, sought permission from District Development Officer, Amreli to sell the said Gamtal land to the petitioner. The said permission had been granted by the DDO, Amreli with certain conditions. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said portion of Gamtal land from Nagar Panchayat, Babra by executing a registered sale deed and paying 25% more price than the market price of such land. Thereafter, after approval of plans by the Nagar Panchayat, Babra, petitioner started construction work of building and along with the building of the bank, petitioner had also constructed 14 shops. It is pertinent to note that the plan of entire building including 14 shops had been approved by Nagar Panchayat, Babra in the year 1985. Thereafter the petitioner had rented out the said shops to the concerned tenants. Thus, since 1985, the said shops have been given on rent by the petitioner. The petitioner is also carrying on banking activities in the said premises. Thereafter, in the year 2011, the RBI informed the petitioner Bank to dispose of non-banking assets as it is in violation of Section 9 of the Banking Regulations Act. Therefore, petitioner Bank had passed a resolution and intended to sell those 14 shops. As per the condition of permission letter, the petitioner sought prior permission from the District Development Officer, Amreli to sell out NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19795/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined the shops. However, during the interregnum period, since the Nagar Panchayat, Babra had turned into Nagarpalika, the DDO forwarded the said proposal to the District Collector, Amreli with his remarks. The DDO informed the Collector that there is breach of condition of original permission and therefore appropriate action is required to be initiated by the District Collector. Thereafter, the District Collector had initiated the proceedings for breach of condition and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and filed written submissions. Thereafter, the Collector passed the impugned order under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, vesting the entire property of the petitioner bank in the Government. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner bank preferred revision before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department. The said revision also came to be rejected. Hence, present petition is filed by the petitioner.